Judge Orders Halligan to Justify U.S. Attorney Title Use

Lindsey Halligan, a former personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, faces a new order from a federal judge in Richmond, Virginia. The judge wants her to explain why she keeps calling herself U.S. attorney in court papers. This follows a November ruling that said her appointment to the job broke the law and the Constitution. The order came Tuesday in a case about carjacking and attempted bank robbery.

Background

Halligan got her job as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September. Trump put her there after removing Erik Siebert, who would not bring charges against people Trump wanted targeted. Siebert had served the maximum 120 days allowed for an interim appointee without Senate approval. Federal law, under 28 U.S.C. § 546, bars a second interim appointment in that situation. The Constitution's Appointments Clause also sets rules for such positions.

Halligan had no prior experience as a prosecutor. She worked as an insurance lawyer and helped Trump in his classified documents case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. That case ended up dismissed. Once in her new role, Halligan quickly got a grand jury to indict former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Those cases aimed at Trump's critics.

In November, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie looked at one of those cases. She ruled Halligan's appointment was invalid from the start, dating back to September 22. Currie said all actions from that appointment, including the indictments, had to be thrown out. The Comey and James cases got dismissed as a result. The Justice Department appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but did not ask to pause Currie's ruling while the appeal goes on.

Judges in the Eastern District of Virginia have dealt with this issue before. In December, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff said in a hearing it was hard to square Halligan's title use with Currie's clear finding. That was in a case about illegal reentry by a deported man from Honduras. Nachmanoff let defense lawyers remove Halligan's name and title from the papers. He said government lawyers must follow court rules.

In another case, U.S. Magistrate William Fitzpatrick handled charges against a man for drunken driving. He struck Halligan's name too. Fitzpatrick stated plainly that under the law in the district, Halligan was not and had not been the U.S. attorney.

After Currie's ruling, prosecutors in the district got an internal email. It told them to keep listing Halligan as U.S. attorney on all court filings. The email said the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had okayed it. It even listed her as both United States Attorney and Special United States Attorney, with a misspelling in one title. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued an order in October. It tried to appoint Halligan retroactively as special attorney from September 22. But Currie had already ruled that did not fix the problem.

Halligan's nomination for a full-term U.S. attorney post sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It faces long odds. Virginia's senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, both Democrats, do not back it.

Key Details

U.S. District Judge David Novak, nominated by Trump in 2019, issued the latest order on his own, not at any party's request. It targets an indictment from early December in a carjacking and bank robbery case. Halligan's name appears on it with her titles: United States attorney and special attorney.

Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond. She must explain the basis for using the title. She also needs to say why it does not count as a false or misleading statement. Novak cited Virginia's Rules of Professional Conduct. He noted Currie's ruling binds the district and cannot be ignored.

DOJ Response and Filing

Halligan filed a response Tuesday. She argued Currie's November decision does not take away her authority to serve as U.S. attorney or handle ongoing cases. The filing came amid questions about leadership in the Eastern District, known as the rocket docket for its fast pace on big cases like national security matters.

Earlier, Attorney General Pam Bondi and her chief deputy, Todd Blanche, spoke out. They accused Virginia federal judges of bias and hostility against Halligan.

"Lindsey and our attorneys are simply doing their jobs: advocating for the Department of Justice’s positions while following guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel. They do not deserve to have their reputations questioned in court for ethically advocating on behalf of their client."

That was their statement last month.

The Justice Department has called some judges' actions an abuse of power. They question demands for Halligan to justify her title.

Novak wants Halligan to sign the response herself.

What This Means

This order puts more pressure on Halligan and the Justice Department. It tests how far they can push back against Currie's precedent while the appeal plays out. If Halligan's title gets struck from more filings, it could slow down cases in the district. Prosecutors might need to adjust how they sign papers or who leads them.

The Eastern District handles many important cases. Disruptions there affect national security probes and other federal matters. Halligan's role ties into broader fights over Trump-era appointments and DOJ directions under Bondi.

For defendants in ongoing cases, this raises questions about who has real authority to prosecute. Defense lawyers could challenge more indictments or filings listing Halligan. Courts might dismiss charges or order refilings.

The appeal to the 4th Circuit could settle things longer term. Until then, district judges keep enforcing Currie's view. Halligan stays in place but under scrutiny. Her Senate nomination hangs in the balance, with little chance of confirmation without bipartisan support.

This situation shows tensions between the Justice Department and federal courts in Virginia. It started with pushes to indict Trump's targets but hit legal roadblocks on appointments. The back-and-forth continues, with judges demanding straight answers on titles and authority.